Search

Andrew Wakefield, one of the doctors who was stricken from the register by the U.K.’s General Medical Council, has filed a complaint in Texas claiming that Brian Deer (Journalist) and Fiona Godlee (Editor of the British Medical Journal). The complaint alleges that the articles, editorials and statements made later about those include “false and defamatory allegations” about Mr. Wakefield.

From the complaint filed:

This defamation lawsuit arises, in part, out of the publication on or about January 5, 2011 and thereafter, in the British Medical Journal, of an article authored for the BMJ by Brian Deer, titled Secrets of the MMR Scare (Exhibit A) and accompanying editorials by the BMJ’s editor, Fiona Godlee (Exhibit B 1-2). Defendants’ article and editorials, distributed to subscribers in Texas and which fonn the basis of Plaintiffs claims, contained unfair, incorrect, inaccurate and unjust criticisms of findings previously reported by Dr. Wakefield and 12 other co-authors. More significantly, Defendants accused Dr. Wakefield of fraud and of fraudulently and intentionally manipulating and falsifying data and diagnoses in connection with a clinical paper he co-authored called Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, originally published in the medical journal The Lancet in 1998 (the “Lance,t Paper”). Defendants’ false and defamatory allegations have been widely disseminated by Defendants through the BMJ and other sources since their original publication.

Dr. Wakefield hereby prays for a trial by jury as to all disputed issues of fact, and upon findings appropriate, further prays for judgment from this Court against the Defendants for: nominal damages, actual and compensatory damages, special damages, including injury to reputation and character, injury to feelings, humiliation, loss of earning capacity, exemplary damages pursuant to TEX. CIv. PRAC. & REM. CODE §41.001, et. seq., declaratory relief, costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, and for such other and further relief to which he may be justly entitled.

Should this go to court, Mr. Wakefield, In arguing a “injury to reputation and character, injury to feelings, humiliation, loss of earning capacity, will have to quantify the state of his reputation and character, feelings, humiliation and loss of earning capacity at the time. This will have to take into account the fact that he had already been struck off the medical register in the UK after being found to have committed “serious professional misconduct” and had lost his job at Thoughtful House. Were the donors to the “Strategic Autism Initiative” less likely to contribute after the BMJ articles?

Honestly, I thought the Andrew Wakefield saga was over and I was glad of it.

I think he filed in TX because that’s where his attorney, William Parrish, is licensed to practice. That attorney, by the way, lives 0.2 miles from Wakefield in a very exclusive Austin neighborhood.I’ve almost no doubt that’s why the attorney is on this filing. It would take a close association to compromise sufficiently to take such a wall-eyed case as this one on. Orac also finds an Anna Parrish associated with Carmel Wakefield et al. on an autism board. Tight community, overall.http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/legal_thuggery_antivaccine_edition_part_2.php

Julian Frost is correct–the comment below was for a different article.

Funny, I too have worked as an editor on peer reviewed journals. As has at least one of the authors of the Korean study.

She makes a very strange statement: “Reliance on expert clinical judgement is all very well, “

Clinical judgement is the gold standard for such work. And multiple clinicians agreed. In general, the problems with clinical judgement come in where individuals are placed on the spectrum, not whether they belong in the spectrum at all.

Deer accused Mr. Wakefield of having fraudulently manipulated data in his The Lancet Article.

For his defense, Deer can also mention:
-The article has been retracted by The Lancet
-The article contained gross misrepresentations in its very first paragraph
– Dr. – Wakefield failed to disclose his gross conflict of interest.

The first indication I had that Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet article might be fraudulent was when I learnt that many of the subjects had been referred from a solicitor’s office and were not – as the article had claimed – consecutive patients referred to the GI clinic with a diagnosis of autism and GI problems. For me, all the rest of the story was postscript.

I would truly love to have the BMJ forego the option to have the case dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction and/or SLAPP and procede directly to trial. I suspect that this lawsuit is nothing more than a ploy to show Wakefield “defending his honour” without having to risk actually losing the case.

When (not if) the suit is dismissed, he will undoubtedly proclaim that he was cheated out of his day in court “on a technicality”. By denying Wakefield his “escape clause”, the BMJ lawyers could force him to either drop his suit or lose it in open court.

This lawsuit is nothing more than “bread and circuses” for his disheartened and restive followers.

Dr. David Lewis, internationally known whistleblower and respected expert on institutional fraud, released a report today calling for a formal investigation into the practices of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), and specifically into the actions of its editor, Dr. Fiona Godlee, and Brian Deer, a reporter she hired to write a series of articles …

“To support their new fraud theory, Godlee, Deer, and the BMJ’s lawyers engaged in the most reprehensible conduct I have ever witnessed involving any scientific journal” (p3 of the filed report by Dr Lewis, linked above)”

Having skimmed over the document by Mr. Lewis, I remain unimpressed. One year, full time, and all he can do is put out a weak attempt at addressing one portion of the myriad problems with the research behind the Lancet study?

““To support their new fraud theory, Godlee, Deer, and the BMJ’s lawyers engaged in the most reprehensible conduct I have ever witnessed involving any scientific journal””

Nice opinion. Nice accusation. Those are easy to throw around Too bad he doesn’t find administering invasive procedures to disabled children for research purposes reprehensible conduct.

Patricia,
“Let´s wait and see shall we?”

Strange comment. We don’t have a choice. But this begs the question–why come here and advertise for the Age of Autism blog if we are supposed to just “wait and see”?

You obviousl know very little about the UK system. The GMC is a tool of the Public Health deoartment of the UK Goverment. It is not a Court of Law.
Wakefield has wisely chosen to defend himself in the US.

I know enough to realize that the document that Mr. Lewis has put so much time and effort in to analyzing was available for Mr. Wakefield in his defense at the GMC. I know this because I’ve read the transcripts. More accurately, in this case, I searched them.

I also realize that the UK libel system is much more plaintiff friendly than is the U.S. system.

Mr. Wakefield had better have much (MUCH) more than Mr. Lewis’ work if he hopes to prosecute this claim. Even if you assume Mr. Lewis is correct (and I have no doubt that the readership of AoA does)he doesn’t address the myriad other issues presented by the BMJ and Mr. Deer. Mr. Lewis claims “Collectively, the documents described above establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the initial fraud theory that the BMJ published in 2010 is untrue. Namely, Dr. Wakefielddid not intentionally misinterpret the grading sheets provided by Prof. Dhillon and Dr. Anthony in order to fabricate the diagnosis of colitis reported in the Lancet study.”

Given a year of full time effort, why didn’t Mr. Lewis read the BMJ articles? Obviously that is sarcasm, but given a year’s effort, why didn’t he even attempt to address anything but a small portion of the claims put forth by the BMJ and Mr. Deer? For example: the fact that many of the children showed signs of developmental disability before their MMR vaccination.

This will affect the company’s profit levels since the advertising fees are too high.
Demographic Targeting: The rise in popularity of social media and social networks has made demographic targeting one of the most crucial Internet marketing strategies.

Loyal customers are a benefit of running an effective email marketing
campaign.

naturally like your website however you need to take a look at
the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and
I to find it very troublesome to inform the reality then again I will certainly come back again.

[…] after those were published, Andrew Wakefield took issue with his work being declared fraudulent and sued for defamation. Not in the UK, where the laws are very favorable to him. No, instead he chose his home state of […]

Recent Articles

There’s a lot of talk about comorbid conditions and autism. Sadly that conversation is often used to suggest that vaccines cause autism. As in, “look at how much GI disease there is in autism. Must be caused by vaccines!” And because of that discussion, probably most of the people drawn to read this article will […]

Rate this:

Years back Jim Carrey was and autism were mentioned together regularly in the news. This was at the height of the vaccine misinformation campaign of his then partner, Jenny McCarthy. Mr. Carrey went so far as to be a speaker at the “Green Our Vaccines” rally in Washington. That was 2008. Since then the Green […]

Rate this:

I just got an email forwarded to me from Senator Beall’s office. The Senator has introduced a bill to increase funding levels for the regional center system. Be ready to advocate for passage of this bill. Here’s the email: Today, Senator Beall introduced SB X 2-1 in response to the developmental community service […]

Rate this:

Below is an action alert email from The Arc of California and United Cerebral Palsey. The short version is “First, click here once to email to your state senator and assemblymember, no matter how many times you’ve already done it. ” and “And second, if you’re in LA County, please click a second time email the […]

Rate this:

Originally posted on The Skeptical Beard:Guest Post by Alison Bernstein of Mommy, PhD This past Saturday, a small group gathered outside the Loews Chicago O’Hare Hotel to protest the presentation by Kerri Rivera at the AutismOne conference. Kerri Rivera promotes the use of chlorine dioxide, or CD, an industrial bleaching agent, for bleach enemas…